Re: Do philosophical theories
Don't know about diagnostic practice, but antibiotic resistant bacteria shows how natural selection and survival of the fittest works. a mutation favoring bacteria to survive lethal dose of antibiotic. they reproduce and their offspring inherits this characteristic resistance.
It is a belief that it proves theory of evolution true. Does the bacteria change into another new type?
Re: Do philosophical theories
Which one of these mechanisms explains speciation? Do you know what defines a species?
Let’s ask another few questions …
Re: Do philosophical theories
Also Bella88
Let’s go right back to the stages when the first amino acids are said to have appeared …
Look at these links:
Homochirality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Miller
Stereoisomerism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In short we have been unable to explain the unlikelihood of life … neither were the conditions for life favourable … homochirality confuses scientists because it suggests a bias that favours amino acids in nature - as if it is by design. The chances of life producing amino acids to form by natural processes is difficult to impossible. Some people have postulated extra terrestrial origins.
Then there is the gap between gene production and its use in a single celled organism … There is no logical step for a gene to form, when all the other genes that are required are already not in place for a replicating system to be created in order for primitive life to be called ‘life’ occurs - i.e. one of the characteristics of life is reproduction … and gene expression is essential for that … but why would genes express? It makes sense that they do when the original organism is splitting, but it makes no sense for genes to be able to do that before a life form has itself developed. If life started in such a way - we should find masses and masses of semi-formed proteins and failed genes - but we don’t … instead we get a selection of type of optical isomers … not a single amino acid in nature uses both of its isomers in life forms … is that an accident? Glycerine does not count because it does not have two forms.
Once we get over that hurdle - we need to understand the symbiotic relationship between mitochondria and the nucleic acid in the cell centre and how or why that cell developed a boundary (membrane) in the first place.
The current world has 8.7 Million creatures, the earth itself has only been around for 4.54 Billion years … but life only started 3.8 Billion years ago … according to the scientists.
Half of this 8.7 Million figure should be equal to the number of extinct common ancestors … And in turn their previous ancestors should be extinct and so on for 23 species generations. Total extinct specimens on record should amount to a figure nearly 6 Million unidentified creatures in addition to the 8.7 Million that are alive today. That is assuming - none of the ancestors are alive today … Why should that be the case? - but heck we will make that assumption anyway. It is also assuming a reduction of 20% fossil evidence occurs compound in each generation.
Do we have about 6 Million species that are on record and not alive today?
Then we still have the issue of chromosomes … so that was in my previous post … please answer those …
Re: Do philosophical theories
Go Bella Go
I know you can do this...
If nothing works "evolve" into a superhuman and beat the intellectual crap out of them, it will also prove that evolution is dynamic and one can evolve anytime to a specie of its own choice.
Go Bella GO
Re: Do philosophical theories
It is a belief that it proves theory of evolution true. Does the bacteria change into another new type?
Yes Mr. Ijaz;
Bacteria changes into yogurt and also into Gogurt, does it prove evolution?
Re: Do philosophical theories
wrong. there are plenty of observed cases of speciation.
If you don't agree just look at my profile picture, right?
Re: Do philosophical theories
i wish i were
The way you handled unwarranted personal attacks with logic and grace was commendable. That's another aspect worth learning from ur post.
Re: Do philosophical theories
Bella88- Girl, you have the patience of a saint! I shudder at the thought of arguing with ajazali/Diwana. I have done it before. Debates are healthy; arguing is not. I am sure you have experienced the pain by now. Not fun.
FYI, the whole evolution debate has been done here a billion times. You ain't changing no one's mind. Save yourself the trouble. Seriously.
Re: Do philosophical theories
here is where I disagree. People who follow science are not doing it out of fear of going to hell or for any sort of punishment. don't most religous people follow their religion to get to Heaven and avoid hell? Science is challenged and is always developing. religion is not usually challenged and when it is, its not well tolerated.
dude. people believed in false God all through the history. Not all of them were scared of hell or punishment. So human beings are MADE to find a God and worship him.
Look at your self and other Darwinians at GS, is there any characteristic they lack of a religious person?? believe, blind faith.. any thing missing in them ??
[quote]
No religion accepts challenges. Science does. that's the difference.
I wasn't a born agnostic or atheist. So i know what it's like when one starts to challenge religion. it's not encouraged and severely punished even in certain cases. so no, you cannot compare those who follow scientific evidence to those who follow religious scriptures. .
[/quote]
yet to my comfort, an other either lying or delusional atheist.
I swear I was scared to listen to people who spoke about religion, But then I started. To my comfort every one was
1-lying
2-trying to be overly funny.
3-twisting facts.
4-ignoring some thing as big as elephant.
god Richard Dawkin him self, too.
so as a believer, I know this @#$# before some one open their moth.
Thank you.
Re: Do philosophical theories
Single
observable
evidence
Was there a fish caught half way becoming human ?
Re: Do philosophical theories
Was there a fish caught half way becoming human ?
yes i know one. shes a famous actress now
Re: Do philosophical theories
Fair enough, and I have no arguments against someone who holds his religious beliefs. But the issue is where people try to make it look like the science is supporting their beliefs when it's clearly not.
Neither do I. I never use science to prove religion right, or vice versa.
All throughout my posting I have been against that thought process. Search all my posts for that.
I didn't argue with this point. Yes, if you hold your religious scriptures as the truth then thats all the evidence you need. I am not trying to disrespect your or anyones religious scriptures .
Yes you do and did.
You are making irreligious comments all throughout your postings and deny that?
Supporting sodomy/homosexuality and then evolution which is contradictory to religious beliefs is like disrespecting or denying religious scriptures.
Its like putting thumb in to the nose of a person and saying no that's not me.
here is where I disagree. People who follow science are not doing it out of fear of going to hell or for any sort of punishment. don't most religous people follow their religion to get to Heaven and avoid hell? Science is challenged and is always developing. religion is not usually challenged and when it is, its not well tolerated. No religion accepts challenges. Science does. that's the difference. I wasn't a born agnostic or atheist. So i know what it's like when one starts to challenge religion. it's not encouraged and severely punished even in certain cases. so no, you cannot compare those who follow scientific evidence to those who follow religious scriptures.
But I have been called wrong many times simply because my views oppose yours and others here
if something is called theory doesn't mean it's just a guess. It's a well-supported and documented explanation for observations. Science does not claim to be the "supreme Truth" like religious scriptures do. Science is modest that way. overwhelming majority of scientists, especially biologists and the ones who study life sciences, do accept evolution. Some are skeptical about certain mechanisms but in general, they all accept evolution. Scientists are always skeptical and always question every theory, and area always open to other possibilities. they are not closed minded, and are open to challenges and new discoveries. something very different from religious folks.
Is there a reason why you always seem post in such a derogatory tone with me? If you disagree, does it mean my knowledge is less?? You seem to ignore ALOT evidence given by scientists, geneticist, biologists yet you think i am the one without knowledge?
LOL are you serious? You lost that argument so badly, you couldn't give me one solid argument in favor of your claims. anatomy of male female is not the reason people have sex, maybe thats your opinion but its not a fact. i find it so interesting how you defied all the modern psychiatrists, medical organization made of researchers and doctors, geneticists and biologists. please educate yourself before making such silly claims that have no basis. and most importantly, stop telling others they need to educate themselves, when you lack so much of it yourself.
I have alot of respect for those who firmly believe in their faith no matter what it is. To each his own. I could care less who believes in creationism vs evolution. But to call something a 'joke' and claim there is no evidence when there is, is not very mature. And you have constantly told me how i lack basic knowledge in every thread where you argued with me which I find very derogatory. The only time I have said that to your posts has been in retaliation after you said it. It's really hard to argue with someone when they think the other person is beneath them intellectually. so this is my last response to you diwana. if you think i lack so much in knowledge compared to you, there is no point in arguing with you.
Again, I find useless to talk with you on deeper level since it requires me to give you a whole lot of evidences and arguments even scientific details, including why I found APA position being absurd...... which I once wanted to,... but when read your posts earlier decided not to and jumped in to the most obvious question of anatomy which you failed to understand or answer.
You should search the thread(s) on this topic of evolution. One had over 20 pages with many participants including myself.
Please do not make a fool of yourself, read at least basic books on genetics and psychiatry before blindly following so called scientists with x,y, z degrees,.. like people talk about religions without even reading scriptures.
Re: Do philosophical theories
Psyah bahi:
You are great. Your questions are intriguing and valid.
Re: Do philosophical theories
Bella88- Girl, you have the patience of a saint! I shudder at the thought of arguing with ajazali/Diwana. I have done it before. Debates are healthy; arguing is not. I am sure you have experienced the pain by now. Not fun.
FYI, the whole evolution debate has been done here a billion times. You ain't changing no one's mind. Save yourself the trouble. Seriously.
Mossy topics have been beaten to death. But with new posters comes a fresh perspective. The link Bella provided was informative.
I agree she wont chaange the opinions of intelligent design or creation proponents. But it is still a pleasure to see her take her adversaries to school.
Re: Do philosophical theories
aijazali or diwana and for that matter anyone else, are all grown up mature people who can speak for themselves, so i am not trying to buck them up, but still I would say perhaps you can consider appreciating them a little too for the amount of energy they spend in arguing with someone whose counters are based solely on the links that show up first in her google search and without verifying their validity in the light of science, she simply copy and pastes them and posts them here. I have come across the sources that she has been picking up the data from and seems so never even once she tries to ascertain the authenticity of the information she chooses to paste all over the place.
Here is some deeper look into the ridiculous claim and shameless lies dished out by evolutionists, for the sake of supporting their theories, that human dna is 99% similar to chimps’.
The actual research paper whose excerpts were misused to make this claim:
The nonsensical idea that human and chimp DNA are 99% similar comes from misinterpreting a 1975 paper by Mary-Claire King and A. C. Wilson. This groundbreaking (for its time) article compared several proteins in chimpanzees to their equivalent proteins in humans.
The below link talks in details about the most recent researches going into the study of human and apes’ genes:
THE MYTH OF HOMOLOGY
Re: Do philosophical theories
Yes Mr. Ijaz;
Bacteria changes into yogurt and also into Gogurt, does it prove evolution?
I think bacteria cause fermentation of milk. Maybe i got something wrong.
Anyhow, I was asking, is there any **established practice in medical science **that is based on theory of evolution?
Or this theory is just propagated to further the agenda of disbelievers?
Re: Do philosophical theories
I think bacteria cause fermentation of milk. Maybe i am got something wrong.
Anyhow, I was asking, is there any **established practice in medical science **that is based on theory of evolution? Or this theory is just propagated to further the agenda of disbelievers?
On the contrary drugs have different affects on different creatures ... Ketamine for example makes horses sleep, it makes humans get psychedelic trips. And even that proves nothing about evolution either ... The same problems would occur on the basis of all creatures being different and requiring their own specific treatment as happens anyway.
evolution is a purely academic and socio-political domain
Re: Do philosophical theories
^ re last sentence. Indeed. While religious theories are published in peer reviewed journals.
Re: Do philosophical theories
I do appreciate their input, buddy. It’s just tiring when they continue to redirect a conversation to what they want to talk about. That’s not healthy.
Besides, I didn’t read Bella88’s response because I don’t want to participate in this never-ending debate. I could care less who is right or wrong. I was just telling Bella88 that this has been argued to death and she wasn’t going to change anyone’s mind so she should save herself the trouble. I believe in evolution because I believe it its evidence. To believe in creationism, I would have to rely on the word of “God” which has no tangible evidence at all. Some evidence is better than none.
Say even if there’s no evidence of evolution (I believe there absolutely is!), even then the idea of an evolving species is a lot less bizarre than a woman being made from a man’s rib spontaneously.
Re: Do philosophical theories
^ re last sentence. Indeed. While religious theories are published in peer reviewed journals.
Scripture is from God ... theories belong to scientists which is why they need to be peer reviewed by other scientists ... all of whom are only human ...
Would I not take from The Perfect One rather than from those who are like me, needy, flawed, weak, who have lapses and can be deceived? Please refrain from using sarcasm because - this phrase peer reviewed journals (meant to be amazingly precise) for you is nothing compared to sheer Knowledge of The Creator ... if you but understood the concept that we have even if you didn't believe in it - just understood Deity then you would not use these useless anecdotes - all for what end? Just to be mocking ... as if that makes your argument any better or weightier ... it doesn't.